SDA Teaching on the Trinity

[8thdaypriest]

Anyone have a link to a list of the 28 Fundamentals?

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I was intending to come back to this a while back, but I got side-tracked. May I please ask for more explanation on this question? I do not understand quite what you are asking or why. You seem to be posting quite a bit about the "church defines its beliefs" but I dont know where you are headed with this kind of question, so I have to ask for more info.

In a nutshell here was where I was headed.

Every SDA I've asked in person and in forms on the Internet  claim that SDA's don't have a "Creed" but have historically written about "Fundamental beliefs".

Between 1845 up to the death of Ellen White literally every Christian denominations Creed [pertaining to the Trinity] was called out by the SDA's as apostasy. Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc.

If an individual represents a denomination's position AGAINST another denomination's Creed isn't that in effect a creed?

The original Fundamental beliefs of SDA were written in such a way that the anti-Trinity Pioneers could agree with it.

I – That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being,

the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient,

and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness,

truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere

present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps.

139:7.

James White agreed with the Above as did the other SDA Pioneers - the point has been made that these same individuals would not have been able to agree with the existing fundamental believe about the "one God".

I'm trying to determine who it is within the SDA Church that is responsible for theological statements pertaining to belief.

  

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Avoiding study won't get you a pass.  But you know that. . . .

Yes I do; thanks for noticing.  Yes; I am sometimes initially discouraged when a passage convicts me of something wrong with my walk.  For example, do you know how hard I have struggles with the Holy Spirit issue? Over 50 years!  As a good Catholic, I was a stout trinitarian. as h Bohemian hippie, I didn't really care about God that much.  As a JW, I doubted the divinity of Jesus as well as the Spirit.  As an SDA, I have struggled off and on with the Personage of the HS.  I'm pretty settled on the idea that the HS is absolutely real; but it is the power of the Father and the Son; not a Person.  I personally don't think it is a "salvational issue as long as one has a trusting, loving, intimate relationship with Jesus; where he is both Friend and God.

In the parable about the 10 virgins in Matt. 25, the "Lord" tells the 5 foolish virgins "truly I tell you, I do not know you."  Is part of the spiritual lesson in this parable that we have to "know" the Lord - be friends with Him and familiar with Him - so we recognize each other with fondness when we meet on the "street".  Could "relationship", "fondness," and "familiarity" with the "Lord" have led the "Lord to recognize them and let them in, even though they were late?  Could the "extra oil" be that loving, trusting relationship we build with the Lord over and above keeping the stipulations of the contract?

[8thdaypriest]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

    I Thessalonians 3:16   [Persecution by Jews and pagans] “forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved,”

        To paraphrase Paul, "The Gentiles are in an unsaved condition.  If we don’t speak to the Gentiles about Christ, they cannot be saved.”

You must HEAR the truth - to BELIEVE the truth - to "be saved".

 It appears there is a minimum amount of information (about the Father and His Son) that one must HEAR, in order to "be saved". 

Discerning what that information is - the Gospel - might tell us the "salvation issue".  What is it, that one must "believe" in order to "be saved"?

How much of the truth - about Jesus - must one HEAR, before one can "believe on Him"?

 

This essence of the Gospel message, brings up my recent dilemma concerning whether to continue contributions to "The Jesus Film Ministry". 

I have given to "The Jesus Film Ministry" for years.  They have three Biblical films, with the characters speaking ONLY dialog from the NT.  #1: Jesus,  #2: Released from Shame - story of Mary Madelaine, and #3 Jesus - for children.  They have translated those films into something like 900 different languages and dialects.  Devoted Christians take those films into jungles in backpacks or on the back of mules, or into forbidden countries on tiny microchips, to present the Gospel to unreached peoples.  Miracles in the name of Jesus, accompany their "Film Teams".  Their films have had a huge, huge, HUGE impact.   The problem arises because they also have a 4th film, a church building film, that teaches doctrines (standard Methodist):  forever burning HELL torment, dead all in Heaven or Hell, Trinity,  Sunday worship, etc. etc. etc.  

Should I continue to support their ministry?   Will not those who sincerely believe through their ministry - "be saved" ?  Of course they will!! 

I think they could have a better "relationship" with a God who doesn't torture forever - those who ultimately reject Him.   But we all have to start somewhere.   When we get to the Kingdom, I'm sure we will meet lots of people who never knew many things ABOUT the Father and His law, and his government.  I include myself in those people. 

What is the Gospel - boiled down to it's most basic elements? 

[stinsonmarri]

It appears that once again to you all, the problem is this one god syndrome. The other problem for some is the EGW is a prophet lie! She said she is not, but who cares SDA just has to believe what they want. The Bible says it is delusional, so please do not get upset with me. Now let me make this very clear, I believe in EGW visions and I believe she was a messenger but we have overlooked her very first vision. And you said what you want the leaders tried to fix it up adding appendices trying to explain what she is saying like many translators have done to the Bible.

So when we read Deut 6: 4 here is what is actually said before tampering with our English context:                                           shema yisrael; YAHWEH ELOHEINU YAHWEH echad.                                                                                 Hear Israel; YAHWEH ELOHEINU YAHWEH  ONE.  

There is no "our" or the verb "is" in the original Hebrew. ELOHEINU is the singular form meaning ALMIGHTY.  So let just think people and stop trying to make it what you were taught! First did THE FATHER create us or THE SON? Who came and ATE with Abraham, who did the 70 elders along with Aaron, Abihu, Nadad, Moses and Joshua saw and ate with and did not die? Next where in the Bible have you ever read that THE FATHER was a person. What I read HE WAS A SPIRIT. John 5:24 But once again middle age writers made this word to mean a current of air, that is, current of air (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind.

Now here what a spirit is: THE ALMIGHTY ONES, and angels both holy and evil. Heb 1:7

What it is not is: current of air, current of air, breeze, (human) the rational soul, vital principle, mental disposition, etc.

Now let think this through when was THE FATHER, THE SON or THE HOLY SPIRIT any of the above? Here is what Acts said about THE HOLY SPIRIT:

And suddenly there came a sound from Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with THE HOLY SPIRIT, and began to speak with other tongues, as THE SPIRIT gave them utterance. Act 2:2-4 

People do not read, they only hear what is taught!  Why didn't they include in the word spirit is a dove also, THE HOLY SPIRIT came down like a dove? Our pioneer was on to something and they did not understand every detail of it. If the SDA Church had continue to pray and follow their lead boy we would be better equip today for understanding!

 Superstition and paganism did not come in just by the Catholic let make that very clear now!   Paul said it was already happening in his day, but Paul was in jail when wrote the letter to the Thessalonians! 2Th 2:7 It was the Greeks that start bring the pagan beliefs in, the Catholic church just made it universal! The translators of the Bible were writing paganism ideology from the beginning.  Now all of you who claim to believe in EGW, what about what she saw in Early Writings p. 220, 221, which by the way is exactly what I am stating. The trinity and this oneness comes from the Aryan belief system. The Persian brought in this pagan system and YAHWEH gave you the lion/Babylon, the bear/Persian, the leopard/Greece in Daniel. The Catholic Church united them into one belief.

Let's get another fact straight EL is not Baal nor does it mean "the lord of the flies."  Why would YAHWEH name Jacob YIsra-EL? This word means ALMIGHTY and  " ayil,"   means the mighty one! They both sound the same, but are not spell the same.

Their are some who do not believe in the trinity but they believe in this oneness and both do not make sense. TWO SPIRITUAL ALMIGHTY BEING created the earth. THE HOLY SPIRIT took HIS order from MICHAEL (there goes that EL again). I agree with those who say THE SON does the WILL of HIS FATHER. Now let understand this please THE THREE of THEM are ALMIGHTY but THE FATHER is THE MOST HIGH! Leave it alone, THE FATHER said that HIS SON sits on HIS RIGHT SIDE and is THE HEIR of all things and CREATOR of all the world's!   Heb 1:2     Stop this equality mess and THEIR NATURE. The Bible says we were created in THEIR NATURE and so was Satan, we both fail out of CHARACTER. Character and nature is the same thing! Leave THE HOLY SPIRIT alone, the Bible say HE never speaks of HIMSELF so why do we!!!!!!

Finally, I know that there are THREE INDIVIDUAL SPIRITUAL BEINGS!  THEY are not this three persons. Nowhere in the Bible do you read that! You know the word person mean and I not going over it again! Stop trying to bring THEM down to corruptible men like the Greeks did with pagan Zeus and all of his suppose to be god family Now they are gods which means demons. Boy am I going to be chew out, but before you do look up god in the etymology and follow it because it will include Zeus and then you will see that it means demon, the one who invokes or conjure up.   

Not anyone can make anyone believe the truth but THE HOLY SPIRIT! My only regret that many will not check out things because of who I am. I cannot save you, I can only present to you the facts and hope you with think about what I have written. What will it cost you to just check and think with prayer about what I stated, maybe your soul?

Blessings and happy Sabbath!                                         

 

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Finally, I know that there are THREE INDIVIDUAL SPIRITUAL BEINGS!  THEY are not this three persons.

I think this is your bottom line statement, stinsonmarri.  And the three individual spiritual beings are not equals.  The Father is higher/greater.   All the rest was scolding, telling us to come over to your view.  

I do not agree with your view.  I cannot imagine that I ever will.  I believe that God the Father is the original divine spirit being.  He beget another being - from out of Himself.  The second (begotten) divine spirit being He called, "My son".  The Son incarnated to become a human being.  The "Holy Spirit" is the universal presence of God the Father, NOT a third divine being.

My disagreement with YOUR VIEW, has nothing to do with your race, or with who you are.  

[B/W Photodude]

What better way for Satan to make people miss the Holy Spirit and the latter rain of the Holy Spirit than by convincing them there is no Holy Spirit. When I read thru the Bible descriptions of what the Holy Spirit does, many of the actions of the Holy spirit require a sentient being to perform those actions.

I do not worry too much about who is the greatest in the Godhead. Apparently They also are not. They are God. However, Jesus made statements about the Holy Spirit like, "He will not speak of Himself." He also made statements referring to the servant being the greater one. It becomes clear to me that while the Holy Spirit tends more to stay in the background and promote Jesus, that is what being God is. Fighting over who is the greatest is a sinful human (angel) trait that is not part of God. Now why is God the Father is the greatest? I dunno. I am just a pot and He is the potter. And I am going to dictate to Him how it should be?

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask what this would mean to you IF it was proven true? What would be wrong if someone believed that Jesus and The Father are "equals."

What would be wrong - IF - someone else believes - that Jesus and God His Father are "equal" and have always been "equal" ?

Are you asking if their belief would cost them salvation?  I do not believe that their belief, sincerely held, would cost them salvation.  I do believe that failure to share (when convicted) truths revealed in God's word, CAN cost one salvation.  It's saying "no" to God. 

If it was proven true to me - that "God" IS three divine beings/persons, what would that "mean" to me?   I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.  Are you asking how I would feel about that?  Are you asking what I would do about that?  Are you asking what effect our understanding of the nature of God (as 1 or 2 or 3 divine beings) has on one's relationship with God?

It would mean that I've been wrong - about what I believe and have taught for 23 years.  I would apologize to the Three Beings, much as I apologized to God the Father back in 1996, for the 16 years I taught the doctrine of three Beings - as truth (though I always had an unsettled feeling about it).   I cannot imagine that proof being offered, except by Christ himself. 

Since I came to understand that God is the Father, and Christ is His literally begotten Son (begotten before the world began) I no longer have that unsettled feeling that something is not quite right. 

Understanding that God IS our divine Father, and He actually did send His own literally begotten Son, to become a human being and then die by torture, for us - that understanding has a huge effect on our relationship with Him.  (It did on mine.)  He becomes a much more loving, and available Being to us.  We can sympathize with the Father, risking and suffering with His OWN Son.  His love for us becomes palpable.  Scripture comes into focus.  Statements made by Paul and others begin to MAKE SENSE - which gave me confidence in the Scriptures, that they could be clearly understood.  I had been so confused by the Three Beings teaching, and the 1844 teaching (with all the time prophecy explanations),  and the constant worry about not being "perfectly like Christ" and being "judged", and the constant references to "what Spirit of Prophecy says",  that I had about given up thinking I would ever find clear truth, that would make sense and feel comfortable - enough to teach with confidence. 

Guess you could say that my understanding is not simply academic. 

[stinsonmarri]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think this is your bottom line statement, stinsonmarri.  And the three individual spiritual beings are not equals.  The Father is higher/greater.   All the rest was scolding, telling us to come over to your view.  

I do not agree with your view.  I cannot imagine that I ever will.  I believe that God the Father is the original divine spirit being.  He beget another being - from out of Himself.  The second (begotten) divine spirit being He called, "My son".  The Son incarnated to become a human being.  The "Holy Spirit" is the universal presence of God the Father, NOT a third divine being.

My disagreement with YOUR VIEW, has nothing to do with your race, or with who you are.  

You see I do not have a view that is the sad problem. It is what the Bible says, and I cannot save YAHSHUA saves. I present, you have a choice to see if it is so. I do not want you or anyone to believe me, believe the Bible. Trinity is not in there this concept you choose to believe is fine. I come here just like you do and comment. Get out this race mess, because not once did I mention it at all! We are talking about the trinity not who I am. It appears that you have the problem and not me. You know I have moved on a long time ago. What I came and commented on, do not have to do with prejudice base on my skin. Prejudice and bias is base on condemnation when someone do not agree with another or a group of people. 

Be bless!

[stinsonmarri]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask what this would mean to you IF it was proven true? What would be wrong if someone believed that Jesus and The Father are "equals."

YAHSHUA said that THE FATHER and HIM ARE ONE. That mean THEY are EQUAL! That is good enough for me.

Blessings!

[8thdaypriest]

17 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

YAHSHUA said that THE FATHER and HIM ARE ONE. That mean THEY are EQUAL! That is good enough for me.

Blessings!

Jesus also prayed that WE would be ONE with the Father.   That doesn't make US equal with the Father, any more than it made Jesus equal with His Father.

"The HEAD of Christ is God."  (1Cor 11). 

[stinsonmarri]

11 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus also prayed that WE would be ONE with the Father.   That doesn't make US equal with the Father, any more than it made Jesus equal with His Father.

"The HEAD of Christ is God."  (1Cor 11). 

8thdaypriest: If you notice, I said for me! You see it does not matter to me about equality of THE FATHER and SON; what matters to me is THEIR saving GRACE! When I read a word from the Bible that appears to be misunderstood, I check the word out. I realize that the KJV used words that are not understood. I understand that because of this problem, is why there are so many beliefs and all claiming to believe in the same thing but we don't. Why is that- it has to do with words and understanding.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy ELOHIM (ALMIGHTY ONES), I will also forget thy children. Hos 4:6 

Now, take the word "begotten" in John 3:16; to me it appears to mean that YAHSHUA came from HIS FATHER! So what I do is look up the word in two ways:

1. Interlinear: I go here to see if all the words provided in English are in the original script. Some words are added truly base on the scholars belief and not what the script provides. That take away what was really said regardless of any language. To me that adding to the Bible. Now that is how I study and understand to show myself approval.

2. Lexicon: Now I see the original word and look at the meaning and how it is applied. Is translated or transliterated which these two words need understanding also.

a.      Translation is the process of translating words or text from one language into another. If you process a word; the step that is used might not always be correct, or maybe once, again base on the translator belief. To me this is serious with the word that he chooses correctly the word to what the Hebrew or Greek writer actually meant. This has been a major problem in translating. The Protestant translators used the Catholic Latin Vulgate to translate their work into English! Too me that's a big problem within itself, you are going to translate from what you are protesting against? Briefly the Greek manuscripts themselves had flaws because we now know that the disciples writers also Paul were Hebrews and used this language or it close relation, the Aramaic to spread the Gospel. This is known as a fact due to many of the words used are not Greek expressions. Why is this so important, well that why the Bible saids to study. Which actually mean to research it out. We all have gifts and ones gift concerning what I am providing along with other gifts can be used together to unite the truth with the help of THE HOLY SPIRIT!

b. Transliterate: is simply transferring words of a language exactly to word that means the same in the other language. This is truly better and help in the knowledge of understanding. However, we still must be realistic; languages being confounded and men problem, regardless of their profession are not always neutral base on one's belief system. This factor always come into play and that is why we have all these various Protestants beliefs all claiming to believe the same? Hum! I can get more technical or scholastic with really providing Exegesis or Eschatological terms, but to me simplicity is the best.

On the word "begotten," this makes sense:

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance- “monos:”alone, only, by themselves, to continue to be present to be held, or kept, continually to continue to be.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon-“genos:” same nature.

MICHAEL did not come from HIS FATHER, HE like HIS FATHER always exist, THEY  by THEMSELVES continue to BE PRESENT, this include THE HOLY SPIRIT, who never speaks of HIMSELF. THEY are ALL of the same NATURE and here is the proof:

And ELOAH ( the word is singular meaning ONE of THEM) said, Let US make man in our RESEMBLANCE (REPRESENTATION, FIGURE), after our LIKENESS (APPEARANCE, NATURE): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So ELOAH (MICHAEL; ONE of THEM) created man in HIS RESEMBLANCE ([be·tzal·mov] REPRESENTATION, FIGURE), in THE RESEMBLANCE of ELOHIYM (ALL THREE) created him – male and female HE created them. Gen 1: 26, 27 

A creation is never equal to its creator!

This is what equality is clear to me! According to the Etymology Dictionary equality it states:

“Similarity, likeness" (also sometimes with reference to civil rights)!

So my friend in my simple way of thinking I accept THEIR EQUALITY! This is now just my choice that I am presenting to you. However, you as everyone here have a right to choose for yourself!

Happy Mother's day to all the wonderful mothers on this forum, may you all be bless, and everyone else too!

[Gregory Matthews]

I will speak to two issues in the post by stinsonmari that need a comment.  While I limit my  comments to two issues, that does not mean that I agree with all else.

1)  Stinsonmari tells us that the Protestant translators translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate.  There may be some truth to a statement that early Protestant translators translated from the Vulgate into English.   There is also some truth to a statement that modern Catholic translators have used the Vulgate.   It would also be true to say that most modern translators are aware of the Vulgate as they translate.  However, major,  modern Protestant translator of the Bible into English have not used the Vulgate as their primary source. Examples of thes translators include, but are  not limited to: the NIV, the NET, the NASB, the NRSV.

 

2)  Transliteration:  Stinsonmari is totally wrong as to what she says on this point.  Transliteration has nothing to do with the transfer of a word in one language to a word in another language that has the same meaning.   Transliteration has to do with a language written in one alphabetic script now being written in the alphabetic script of another language.  As an example:  The Hebrew language has its own alphabetic script.  I can not post in this forum by writing with the Hebrew alphabet.  But, I can post here a Hebrew word written in the same alphabetic script that I am using now.  IOW, the Hebrew word often translated in English is  transliterated into the English "yom."  However.  "Yom" is not an English word.  It does not have an English  meaning.  "Yom" simply remains a Hebrew word transliterated into English. 

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Thank you for sharing all that. I guess part of what I am wondering is I am surprised to hear you say that this "unsettled feeling" is some sort of evidence for Bible truth/doctrine. So yes. You were right. Your belief here is not purely academic. Maybe you had too many beans that day which caused the "unsettled feeling?"

The conviction of the Spirit of Christ is NOT "beans"!!  My unsettled feeling - that something was not right in the Trinity teaching went on for some 12 years, before I finally determined to study it out.  I did not start my study, thinking that I would find what I did - that our "God" is NOT three divine beings/persons of a Heavenly Trio.  I was sure that I would just strengthen my belief in those Three Persons.  Instead - I discovered that God really DID beget another divine being - from out of Himself.  He sent that Son, to die for us. 

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What have you decided that Jesus being "begotten" means regarding His nature? And I do not really mean some kind of "word study" for the word "begotten."  I mean more along the lines of how would a person believing that Jesus was equal with God the Father, and The Holy Spirit disentitle a person as far as having a relationship with God.? If it's not a salvational issue then why is it so important to, well, lets say to have your view on this matter?

As I am sure you know, Jesus did say in John 17:3 and other places that it is eternal life to know BOTH God and WHOM He has sent. Does THAT Bible criteria make this a salvational issue?

WHY is it important - to understand the relationship between God our Father and Christ His Son?  

Is it a salvational issue?  Will folks be lost, for believing the "wrong" way?   I would say, "No".  Not UNLESS one has seen the Scripture evidence, and has "seen" the truth - and then chooses to ignore it (for the usual social reasons, or for fear of loosing employment). 

When Jesus said, "this IS eternal life" - I don't think He was saying "this is THE salvational issue".   He was saying that eternal life comes from "knowing" God and the One God sent.  Our "knowing" is progressive.  It does not begin with a complete understanding.    

The bottom line - great salvational issue - is to believe that Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God, who came from Heaven and died for us, so that we can be forgiven and receive eternal life.  Everything else grows from THIS first belief.    Even the understanding of -  the sense in which Jesus was "God's son" (literal or assumed role) is not something most usually contemplate.  They just leave it a mystery. 

WHY is it important? 

Most people have children.  The love they feel towards those children is beyond reasoning.  It is innate.  God compared Himself to a parent - a father, and also at times a mother.   He wanted us to understand how much He loves us.  With understanding comes TRUST.  With TRUST comes opening and healing. 

If He created us, could He not simply destroy us and start over ?  Of course He could.  But He would not - because He actually loves us.   He loves us - like we love our children - only much much more.  

When I came to realize that God actually WAS the Father of Jesus Christ, that He sent His very own Son,  that is when I began to realize how much God loves us - how much He wants a relationship with us.    And much, much more than simply sending Him, He sent Him to BECOME a human.  To do that, His Son would have to divest Himself of divine power.   His divine Son - became His human son.   Wow!!   All this because He truly loves us - puny miserable fallen humans.  

I found it much easier to love a Father, than a committee of three.   Folks usually love their grandfathers.   I talk to God the Father as my Grandfather in Heaven.  He fathered His Son, and His Son created me.   As in Middle Eastern families, the senior father - is "Head" over the family.  Makes sense that "God [the Father] is  head of Christ".   Doesn't make sense that two beings (Father and Holy Spirit) are (one) "head". 

WHY is it important?

When the truth of Father and literal Son, opened to me - I saw that every NT author was saying the same things.  The Scriptures fit together so seamlessly.   It gave me more TRUST in the Scriptures, and in the One who inspired them.  My faith was strengthened.  THAT is a very comforting feeling. 

Anyone wishing to read the series of studies on this topic, can go to my website  prophecyviewpoint.com.  Here's the link to the first study in the series.

http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/44a-Part 1 TR-Intro.htm

 

[JoeMo]

22 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What have you decided that Jesus being "begotten" means regarding His nature?

Not to be answering for Rachel, but to me, "begotten" is more intimate than "created".  The closest thing I can compare it to (in order to wrap my mind around it) is like an amoeba dividing in two. Jesus is of the same substance as the Father.  Nothing else in all creation is like that.  In that sense, Jesus and the Father are One.  They are the same.  The only difference is One has existed for all eternity; and One was "begotten" at the Beginning (maybe AS the Beginning).  Scientifically speaking, there was no such thing as "time" before there was "space".

[TrevorL]

Greetings The Wanderer,

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Not to be answering for Rachel, but to me, "begotten" is more intimate than "created".  The closest thing I can compare it to (in order to wrap my mind around it) is like an amoeba dividing in two. Jesus is of the same substance as the Father.  Nothing else in all creation is like that.  In that sense, Jesus and the Father are One.  They are the same.  The only difference is One has existed for all eternity; and One was "begotten" at the Beginning (maybe AS the Beginning).  Scientifically speaking, there was no such thing as "time" before there was "space".

The term begotten is speaking of the conception that then resulted in the birth of Jesus, the Son of God. He is called the Son of God because God the Father is his father and Mary his mother in this conception, birth process. Jesus did not exist before his conception and birth.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, I will chime in here, as I understand it.

The key to understanding this Biblical issue lies in the meaning behind the word translated into English as "begotten."  In referencing this, it should be noted that the well know passage found in John 1:14 as "only begotten of the Father."  carries the meaning  of the "uniquely begotten of the Father."  From this perspective, the understanding of that word "unique."  may carry the key to understanding.

As all know, Trinitarians believe that Christ, the 2nd person of the Godhead was eternally existing and had no beginning.  From this perspective, they would believe that the Biblical passage in John 1:14 is referencing the incarnation in which a member of the Godhead, with no beginning took on human nature which obviously could have both a beginning and an end in death.  They would also believe that any Old Testament passages that reference this are referencing this future incarnation, rather than stating that the 2nd person of the Godhead had some sort of a beginning in which the Father produced the 2nd person. 

So, this passage in John 1:14 is critical to our understanding.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Well, I will chime in here, as I understand it.

The key to understanding this Biblical issue lies in the meaning behind the word translated into English as "begotten."  In referencing this, it should be noted that the well know passage found in John 1:14 as "only begotten of the Father."  carries the meaning  of the "uniquely begotten of the Father."  From this perspective, the understanding of that word "unique."  may carry the key to understanding.

As all know, Trinitarians believe that Christ, the 2nd person of the Godhead was eternally existing and had no beginning.  From this perspective, they would believe that the Biblical passage in John 1:14 is referencing the incarnation in which a member of the Godhead, with no beginning took on human nature which obviously could have both a beginning and an end in death.  They would also believe that any Old Testament passages that reference this are referencing this future incarnation, rather than stating that the 2nd person of the Godhead had some sort of a beginning in which the Father produced the 2nd person. 

So, this passage in John 1:14 is critical to our understanding.

Or, that the Son is Eternally begotten from the Father, beyond our finite comprehension I know but Scripture does say it's a mystery. 

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Jesus did not exist before his conception and birth.

He might not have been called "Jesus until His human existence; but the being who became Jesus is the Member of the Godhead who almost always interacted with humans.

" And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."( 1Cor. 10:4)

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, BeforeAbraham was, I am." (John 8:58)

See also Ps. 2:7; 2Sam. 7:14; 1Chron. 7:13; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 104:4; and several other OT verses which the writer of Hebrews says refer to Jesus in Heb. 1.

I do think this is a truth that might be critical to salvation (at least for me).

[TrevorL]

Greetings JoeMo,

49 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

He might not have been called "Jesus until His human existence; but the being who became Jesus is the Member of the Godhead who almost always interacted with humans.

It is not my intention to answer all the passages that are used by Trinitarians to support their view of the pre-existence of Jesus as the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Please refer to John 8:24,28 for an explanation of John 8:58, and also Tyndale's translation of Exodus 3:12-14 "I will be". Greg Matthews has drawn attention to John 1:14 and the only begotten or uniquely begotten of the Father is parallel to Luke 1:35, where the begettal of Jesus is detailed. It is not talking about some relationship forged from eternity. The word conceived in Matthew 1:20 is cognate with the word begotten in John 1:14 and John 3:16 and in the margin of the NASB for Matthew 1:20 for conceived has “Lit. begotten”. Thus the three Gospel records that mention the birth of Jesus define “begotten”, while the Trinity is based originally on Platoism and immortal souls that also pre-existed and confuses the whole issue. Jesus was born a man, the Son of God Luke 1:35, not a God-man. This was a unique conception - birth, as God the Father was his father and Mary his mother, but Jesus was a human being, not an incarnated God. The OT God is Yahweh, the One God, the Father and the term "Father" has this primary meaning because God was the literal father of Jesus.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings The Wanderer,

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

John 8:58 says: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.'"   May I ask how, in your view, does vs 24& 28

As stated, I am not going to respond and discuss the many passages used by Trinitarians. I will mention that in both John 8:24, 28 the KJV translates the same words as “I am he”, while in John 8:58 they are translated “I AM”. I suggest that SDAs and Trinitarians will be perplexed by the word "begotten" for ever, especially if they choose to ignore how the NT uses this word.

Kind regards Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

25 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I do not really see any “primary meaning” in the Word/Name of “Father.”

I appreciate the thoughtful post on many aspects of the Divine character. As far as the word "Father" is concerned, I suggest that it is  a word that can be understood simply in any language and is significant as the One God the Father is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus is the Son of God by birth, by moral character and by his resurrection Romans 1:1-4.

Kind regards Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I know I have been mixed up in the past about "the name" and what has helped me to sort it out is simple: "the name above all names" is Jesus.

You seem to be quoting or alluding to the following and I suggest that this is not teaching what you claim. God the Father has exalted Jesus, God the Father has given him a name above every name, and when we bow the knee to Jesus it is to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:8-11 (KJV): 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[8thdaypriest]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:09 AM, TrevorL said:

Greetings The Wanderer,

The term begotten is speaking of the conception that then resulted in the birth of Jesus, the Son of God. He is called the Son of God because God the Father is his father and Mary his mother in this conception, birth process. Jesus did not exist before his conception and birth.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Kind regards Trevor

While Jesus (the man) did not exist prior to His birth from Mary, the Son of God DID EXIST.   He created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrews 1:8  But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions1." 10 And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands."   John 1:10, Hebrews 1:2

Why call Him "the Son" if He was not - in fact - His Son?